Since canon refuse to make a 24-105 f2.8 IS I think sigma should step up to the plate and make one their recent build quality of the latest lenses has improved alot from the last generations they could do well in this space.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
talking about focusing screens, I'd like to change the focusing screen of my 50D as as well . Does anyone know which one will be good? I had been having problems with focusing when i do it manually it's sharp on the view finder but as i took the picture, the photo taken is not in focus. On low light situations where I cant trust the AF or it just dont work, manual focusing is a pain since all shots taken were off but on the viewfinder it's crisp clear.
Actually, the Lightscoop http://lightscoop.com/ kind of works. You have to compensate for the reduced light, but as gadgets go, this is not a bad one. Certainly no substitute for a good strobe and it's not going to cover long distances, but in a pinch it can be a lifesaver.
Uses a mirror instead of a diffuser, so I think it probably conserves some of the light a little better. More expensive, though. Handy to throw in the camera bag for emergencies.
going a little OT here but what are your thoughts on the siggy? quality how do you think it compares to say the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS IIQuote from: Haydn1971which either indicates times are hard and people are ditching their least used lenses or a lot of people are expecting something soon and want to get the maximum return on a old lens.Or - like me - they've upgraded to a new lens (in my case a new Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS) and no longer need the 100-400mm...
this is the combo i like too 16-35 on an APS-H body gives you 20-48mm f2.8 and takes away any corner softness great for group shots or some interesting angles then the 85 on FF is perfect for portraits / couples etcThey could do 24-105 f2.8 but it would weigh a ton and a half. But every major manufacturer doesn't make a 24-70 f2.8 because it's a crappy focal length. It's a very good length, it gives you good wide angle and decent normal range @ f2.8. You are asking if it's "too short" even though it's not suppose to be a "long lens". It's a normal zoom lens, that's all.Some of us wouldn't mind the extra weight to avoid having to change out lenses or buy a 135mm.
I had considered the 24-70, but went with the 16-35mm and 85mm instead. I am glad that I did.
I use my 300mm (with a 1.4x sometimes) and that is long enough on my 5Dm2. Well, for pictures of the Moon and planets it isn't long enough. But it still works well.
Who cares you are going to sell all your Canon gear.
Here is another way to have an onboard flash
|Human Light Suit: Burning Man 2010||Small | Large|